Apple's report also details its electricity consumption and green efforts over the last year

Apple has made some considerable green contributions to the renewable energy effort recently, including the company's Maiden, North Carolina data center, which will feature the U.S.' largest end user-owned, onsite solar array.

According to Apple's 2012 Facilities Report and Environmental Update, which describes the company's energy savings and environmental footprint in Apple stores, data centers and R&D buildings, solar power will become a huge part of its Maiden, North Carolina data center. In fact, Apple is out to build the largest end user-owned solar array in the nation.

The onsite solar array surrounding the facility will be approximately 100 acres. It will be a 20-megawatt facility that will generate about 42 million kWh of clean energy on an annual basis. Next to it will be the largest non-utility fuel cell installation in the U.S. as well, which will be a 5-megawatt facility generating 40 million kWh of 24x7 baseload of renewable energy annually.

The data center has already received some attention from the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave it LEED Platinum certification. Apple also mentioned that no other data center of its size has been awarded such a high level of LEED certification.

In addition to the Maiden, North Carolina data center, Apple has been making other green efforts to reduce its negative environmental impact. In 2011 alone, Apple consumed 493 million kWh of electricity as well as 3 million therms of natural gas. According to the report, Apple used renewable energy efforts to escape about 30 million kilograms of CO2e emissions. It has also managed to convert 54 million kWh of consumption annually to renewable energy in facilities around the world.

In December 2011, Apple patent applications described two new fuel cell-powered mobile device patents called "Fuel Cell System to Power a Portable Computing Device" and "Fuel Cell System Coupled to a Portable Computing Device."

We will never reach a cieling until the sun burns and and life for us is impossible. You don't understand basic economics. Let me break it down for you. There are three spheres of the economy.

The first is resource harvesting. The energy of the sun is a resource to be harvested and used, when it burns out there will bo no more energy from the sun. There is a limited amount of material to be used in the Earth, but this does not limit the economy at all. All resources can be harvested and gathered.

The second is creation. You can take a piece of metal, and recreate it into whatever you want to creat it into as many times as you like if you have the energy to do so. If there were no trees, we would build houses with something else. If there were no oil we would build roads with something other than asphalt. The materials in the world can be recreated into something else indefinitely as long as there is energy to do so.

The third is trade. Trade is how created things are distributed. Trade is zero sum when the ability to create and recreate is ignored.

The bloody economy is not limited ever until there is no more energy of any kind. Don't think that trade = economy; it does not. Don't think that production = trade; it does not.

There are many idiots that think money is something created, not traded. That's confusing the spheres and screwing the economy.

Understand economy before you say we are limited. Man is not limited except by energy available.

I said resources is limited. Economic growth is putting a strain on earth's resource, be it metal, fresh water, food. You cannot grow an economy without raw material resource, that's on top of energy. You are telling me if the world suddenly run out of iron ore tomorrow, the economy still carries on growing forever? No it will stall immediately after storage run out. You can't build new buildings for one, no new machinaries, no new cars. The economy generate wealth by adding value to raw materials in staggered stages. Good luck in continuously adding value to a hammer which reaches the end of its material value chain.

Assume you can 100% recycle all materials, at best that keeps an economy afloat with percisely zero growth ONLY if population growth is also exactly zero. That's a hypothetical thought experiment anyway.

You are still believing in an artificial limit. Do some research on how much metal is current recycled and how much is created from raw ore. The economy is about creating things, not raping the world as you see it.

Value is always added through recreating something to be better. Try adding value to a stick, or a rock; cavemen did it, why can't you. There is no end of a value chain, everything is simply recreated and remade to be better. Population growth has nothing to do with it, if you had 10 people who lived forever, they could all build their own castles given enough time and increase their standard of living. People who create stuff drive the economy, not people being born.

People with the kind of beliefs you're presenting kill the economy, not an actual real world limitation.

quote: You are still believing in an artificial limit. Do some research on how much metal is current recycled and how much is created from raw ore. The economy is about creating things, not raping the world as you see it.

He isn't talking about metal. He's talking about ENERGY. Energy can't be recycled. The economy requires ENERGY to 'add value' to things. Even if he was talking about metal, though, you're mistaken - since increase in industry, population and popularisation of new areas of the world mean that all the time the overall requirement for metal is increasing. At some point it will reach a point where not enough metal is available for recycling since it's all in use. While you may claim a replacement material could be found - it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be, and even it is, there aren't indefinite new materials which are available. With the current world population, taking your castle example for people who live forever - there would NOT be enough accessible material in the world to make this happen.

People creating 'stuff' do contribute to the economy (they are by no means all of the economy) - but they require energy exactly as everyone else does.

Energy is the most recyclable thing there ever has been. Ever heard of E=mC^2? Even mass theoretically can be made into energy or vice versa. We can take chemical energy and change it into kinetic energy. Take kinetic energy and turn it into thermal energy. Take any energy and it can theoretically be changed into any other form of energy. You can't take a pope can and make a horse with it; energy is the most recyclable thing that has ever existed.

quote: Energy is the most recyclable thing there ever has been. Ever heard of E=mC^2?

Don't confuse recyclable with the conservation of energy.

Much of the energy from say, driving a car, burning a fire, any movement actually, light, radiation - is dispersed over a massive exponentially increasing radius and it is not within even our theoretical capabilities to recapture said energy. Every day the earth loses lots of the energy we used ourselves in the form of heat dispersion, light and radiation. Good luck catching up with that energy and recapturing it. Any net 'in-flow' of energy is only relevant when you use said energy in the form of the exact renewable energy this factory is using.

quote: Even mass theoretically can be made into energy or vice versa

The point being, the types of mass which we know how to generate energy from effectively, are running out, or we can't produce them quickly enough in high enough volumes to satisfy our ever increasing energy needs. Thus many power companies are turning to renewable energies.

quote: We can take chemical energy and change it into kinetic energy

Only until we run out of the chemicals in question. Since you quote E=mC^2 - you must also therefore recognise that energy lost into space is also equivalent to mass being lost into space - it's not an unlimited supply.

quote: Take any energy and it can theoretically be changed into any other form of energy

The obvious scientific principle that energy can be converted (with efficiency losses in nearly all cases, by the way) - is completely irrelevant when faced with the reality of our current world, in which our capability to 'covert' energy from certain materials is limited. Renewable energy sources are examples of converting energy - energy of which there is going to be a very long term stream. Contrast this to burning oil - which is running out. No matter what you cite in terms of E=mC^2 will mean that we can replace oil with mud, certainly with current technology. You seem to be envisaging a future world in which we can use any material for fuel - a scientific possibility but not even close to our current reality.

quote: energy is the most recyclable thing that has ever existed.

Given that you quote E=mC^2, and given that mass and energy are arguably the ONLY things that exist, energy is only as recyclable as everything else in the world, making your sentence pointless. The difference is, energy typically (such as in the form of light or radiation, or heat) is far harder to re-capture and is currently lost in ever increasing spherical areas into outer space. The energy still exists, of course, but not in any relevant or helpful way to humans.

Everyone agrees that the idea of a perpetual motion machine is a good thing, but it's also something impossible in a system on earth. Economics isn't about what's "good" per se, but what's the correct price for things. At what cost to everything else are you willing to obtain some renewable energy?

quote: Everyone agrees that the idea of a perpetual motion machine is a good thing, but it's also something impossible in a system on earth

... which is completely irrelevant since renewable energy isn't a scientific possibility.

quote: Economics isn't about what's "good" per se, but what's the correct price for things.

In this case, nobody is talking about 'good' - we're talking about necessary . The fact is oil is ALREADY running out - and thus there is a REQUIREMENT for alternative sources of energy. The cost of said sources doesn't change that fact - and can in fact only come down when more and more people (like this factory) implement it.

Since solar power, in this case, already pays for itself - the cost is actually less over time than alternative energy sources.

Turn your question around, at what cost are YOU willing to leave us with a worldwide dependence on a fuel which is running out, a clearly unsustainable path?

quote: Energy is the most recyclable thing there ever has been. Ever heard of E=mC^2?

Sure I have. Have you ever heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Due to the nature of this universe, energy recycling is either NOT possible, or lossy - and often very much so. Try recycling the energy poured into a microprocessor for example - it turns into heat, which basically is pure waste.

All recycling and renewable energy is "lossy." What's your point again? The sun isn't renewable, the energy from it comes at a loss to the reserved energy of the sun.

And theories make everything more understandable. Newton's theories on motion didn't only describe what existed at the time, but helped people create more useful things that Newton never imagined could exist. The engine for example. "Theoretically" is one of the things that does help the real world, and quite significantly at times.

Recycling, in the case of heat, light, radiation escaping the earth, is not just lossy - it's actually impossible to achieve any net gain in energy using current technology. If you drive your car up and down the country with your headlights on - you can't recapture the energy you used in doing that. It's simply outside what is possible right now.

Renewable energy, on the other hand, can (and does today) provide massive amounts of additional usable energy (within the context of the earth) which will not run out for the forseeable future.

quote: The sun isn't renewable, the energy from it comes at a loss to the reserved energy of the sun.

The level of energy at the sun reducing is not of concern to us until the billions of years later when it runs out. Indeed, the level of energy at the sun reducing is essential to our survival. Within the definition of 'renewable energy' - the sun is indeed renewable. Contrast this, if you will, to oil - which will run out millions of times faster. To use your own quote, burning oil comes at a loss to the reserved energy of the oil. The difference is, the sun has far, far more which will last a lot longer.

quote: And theories make everything more understandable. Newton's theories on motion didn't only describe what existed at the time, but helped people create more useful things that Newton never imagined could exist. The engine for example. "Theoretically" is one of the things that does help the real world, and quite significantly at times.

Your own comment describes how 'theoretically' only becomes useful or relevant when it is ACTUALLY implemented in a practical way, and at that point it is not theoretical at all. Theoretical methods of energy are of no use to someone who needs energy right now - unless you think that every scientist in the world is embarking down the wrong path and that you know better ways to capture energy.

Remember, solar power was 'theoretical' at one point - it's now reality - and that's why it's useful.

Honestly, I don't think even you know what your point is in all of this - you say that society has to adapt, going from oil, to nuclear, to renewable - yet when society does exactly that, you start banging on about the sun not being renewable, as if that has any relevance whatsoever? So really, what exactly is the point you're trying to make? Should all of the world ignore any renewable energy?

Agree with Annihilator, while resources can be re-harvested, they can't necessarily be re-harvested in time to produce energy. Oil is a good example of this. It cannot be recycled.

The whole quest for renewable energy is to move away from energy sources which aren't renewable enough to sustain current demand, such as Coal, Oil, Gas - and instead move to Solar / Wind / Wave energy - which are.

If the economy does not adjust to said renewable energies in time before the limited resources run out the economy would clearly be adversely affected. The chances are that this will be a gradual effect and since alternatives are already in place we may never hit that point - but we will never hit that point precisely because of projects like this which focus on renewable energy.

coldfriction, appearantly your economic analysis fails to realize we have reached a ceiling. The world will not let us use more oil than we currently are. Infact we've been reducing our oil consumption since 2004, not by choice, but for economic neccessity. With Iran cutting oil to France and India just yesterday, world consumption is going to have to drop as well.

Yes, the sun is there and the oil is there, but these 'wake up calls' are just that. We need to stop depending on oil. It used to be cheap, but a cost analysis shows solar breaks even in a number of years now, not decades like it used to be.

quote: coldfriction, appearantly your economic analysis fails to realize we have reached a ceiling. The world will not let us use more oil than we currently are.

That's hogwash. Your statement is only true if the oil currently being exploited was all that was left on the planet. Which we know not to be the case.

quote: It used to be cheap, but a cost analysis shows solar breaks even in a number of years now, not decades like it used to be.

You got a link for that? Smells like BS to me. Solar power and oil don't necessarily even overlap anyway. Unless you're comparing something like ICE cars to EV's. We're not burning oil to generate electricity. The cost of oil and solar power generation have very little to do with each other. How is it going to stop us from "depending" on oil again? Coal and nuclear directly compete with solar, but oil??

Know what's funny? I can see a future, call it 75+ years from now, when people like you will grandstand about us "depending" on Rare Earth metals in all the solar panels. And about how we have to get off them or we're all doomed or something lol.

Oil will clearly run out since we're using it faster than it's being created, that arguably, is the 'hitting the ceiling' the original poster refers to. The amount we actually have is not relevant to this point - the point is it has a far nearer end date than renewable energy.

Even domestic Solar panels pay off within a few years, as you can see by visiting any solar panel manufacturer.

Why do you think that oil is not competing with solar? What exactly do you think oil is being used for? Oil currently provides 41% of the world’s total energy supplies, more than coal or natural gas. Solar, then, is CLEARLY and indisputably competing with oil, arguably more so than coal or natural gas.

quote: Know what's funny? I can see a future, call it 75+ years from now, when people like you will grandstand about us "depending" on Rare Earth metals in all the solar panels. And about how we have to get off them or we're all doomed or something lol.

If this starts to be the case, there would be a legitimate case to recognise that reality and start planning alternative sources of energy, such as wind or wave. Exactly what the OP is doing. In your world would we all sit back and ignore it until the day we ran out? Causing mass chaos?

quote: That's hogwash. Your statement is only true if the oil currently being exploited was all that was left on the planet. Which we know not to be the case.

It's not hogwash. The vast majority of the world's high quality oil reserves have already been exploited, and many of them drained bone dry already. There are a lot of oil left still, but the vast majority of THAT is difficult and expensive (in money, energy or both) to extract, of low quality, or all of the above.

Either way, we can't increase oil production capacity by exploiting these sources, since they're not easily exploitable.

Maybe I was incorrectly educated. I was taught a law known as the Conservation of Energy. With my understanding energy is never created or lost, it simply changes forms. So what if we have to quit using oil? Oil isn't the economy, human's producing things worth trading for the betterment of all is what the economy is about. Whether we do that with oil or with the energy food provides makes no difference. The economy isn't tied to anything but human efforts. Should we run out of oil, we still have nuclear; should we run out of nuclear, we still have the sun; should we run out of the sun, we had better have a pretty good understanding about our existence or we're screwed.

Good thing I believe in the conservation of energy and that all things change; there is no true loss or gain, just a better condition if we make it. I do understand that we can't close the universe off to obtain all the energy in it, and that entropy removes energy from any system that isn't the entire universe. Fear mongering is what is killing the progress of mankind. Like the stupid belief that mankind can't make itself better than it is.

quote: Maybe I was incorrectly educated. I was taught a law known as the Conservation of Energy.

Conservation of Energy does not mean anything in terms of recycling or reusable fuel.

quote: So what if we have to quit using oil? Oil isn't the economy, human's producing things worth trading for the betterment of all is what the economy is about.

Well, now you have to be careful - since this starts your own contradiction. I'm glad we're clear oil will run out, an obvious point that nobody with a brain can dispute. However, your talk about what the economy is tied to is exactly the point the original poster you argued with is making. He's suggesting a way in which the economy can NOT be dependant on oil - ie by using renewable energy. You even yourself say:

quote: should we run out of nuclear, we still have the sun

This is the exact renewable type of energy the original poster was referring to. You're now completely backing up his point.

quote: Good thing I believe in the conservation of energy and that all things change; there is no true loss or gain, just a better condition if we make it

In the context of the EARTH, there is very much a concept of loss or gain, and conservation of energy within the Earth is not true at all. There can be a net out-flow or in-flow of energy. As it happens, there is arguably a net in-flow, but mainly due to the types of renewable energy which the original poster was backing.

quote: I do understand that we can't close the universe off to obtain all the energy in it, and that entropy removes energy from any system that isn't the entire universe.

Then you also realise why conservation of energy in this context is an irrelevant argument.

quote: Fear mongering is what is killing the progress of mankind. Like the stupid belief that mankind can't make itself better than it is.

This is so unbelievable, given your previous sentence. Read this:

'Should we run out of oil, we still have nuclear; should we run out of nuclear, we still have the sun; should we run out of the sun, we had better have a pretty good understanding about our existence or we're screwed'

This sentence, from YOU, describes how we NEED TO ADAPT when certain resources are depleted. Yet you are CRITICISING the original poster for encouraging EXACTLY THAT - moving away from oil dependence and utilising renewable sources of energy which will last much longer. Clearly, if we didn't consider the future now, we would reach a point where oil ran out and we weren't ready to embrace the next source of energy - and this WOULD AFFECT OUR ECONOMY. The solution you propose is the solution he is actively advocating, and you're criticising him for it.

Running scared from a boogeyman is not adapting. We need to obtain better understanding of what energies exist, how to reorganize them, and where we go from where we are. Creating a false scenario of the sky falling puts everyone into bunker mode and not progress mode. We need efficiencies of capturing solar energy to be ECONOMICALLY viable before we can do without oil and nuclear, this is only occurs through reorganization and creation. Get the scientists to quit worrying about the end of the world and they might make something to help someone instead.

quote: BTW it's not hypocrisy. The original poster said that our economy has a cieling; that it is limited in it's ability to grow. I say it is not and back my claim.

What the original poster stated is that WITHOUT adapting to new technologies such as solar (such as this factory in this article) before it's too late, the economy will hit a ceiling. Not that it can't continue to grow if renewable and other alternative energy sources are pursued. I think perhaps the whole rant of yours is due to this fundamental misinterpretation on your part.

His comment that alternatives need to be found before we run out is exactly in line with the adaptation you describe.

quote:Running scared from a boogeyman is not adapting. We need to obtain better understanding of what energies exist, how to reorganize them, and where we go from where we are. Creating a false scenario of the sky falling puts everyone into bunker mode and not progress mode.

I'm sorry but all the original poster suggested was 'adapting' - nothing he said even remotely meant 'running scared from a boogeyman'. If we waited until we had a 'better understanding of what energies exist' - it would be too late, since there have already arguably been wars over oil. Iran are also very close to causing another war over oil - and they are only able to do this due to us being very close to depleting our total capacity of oil.

In a world in which oil is becoming increasingly expensive, solar power are already economically viable, as are even domestic solar panels which can pay for themselves within 5 years.

quote: We need efficiencies of capturing solar energy to be ECONOMICALLY viable before we can do without oil and nuclear, this is only occurs through reorganization and creation. Get the scientists to quit worrying about the end of the world and they might make something to help someone instead.

Firstly - It already is.

Secondly - is your solution to solar not being enough yet to go without oil or nuclear that solar should be ignored, and not used at all despite it proving economically viable and reducing dependence on oil or nuclear energy? (of which there is only a finite amount).

Thirdly - who said anything about the 'end of the world' - nobody. But by the way, energy independence that can only realistically be achieved by utilizing alternative energy sources such as nuclear or solar is a big factor in achieving world peace, an absence of which could actually mean a world war with devastating consequences.

Fourthly - Scientists are only now pushing the boundaries of alternative sources of power because the world knows that oil supplies are limited and alternatives need to be found. Without investment in cases like the factory being discussed there would not be the same industry. The approach you want is what is actually happening.

The laws of economics work like a balancing equation. If one side is heavy, something happens to balance the equation. Your fourth point shows this. But to artifically weight one side of the equation to obtain a result that is desired is not science or progress, it is manipulation of the laws that exist to get something desired. This occurs frequently with environmentalists, republicans, democrats, and people in general. Let's understand the equation instead of artificially weighing it to the advantage of our own perceptions, which are frequently incorrect.

The reason logical people (that is, the majority of scientists, even people in general) recognise that renewable energies are a good thing is because there is becoming an increasing need for them - as a natural consequence of running out of oil, which means that by a specific date or time, we have to have moved on from our oil dependence.

You have it backwards - you seem to think that we're artificially creating a need where one doesn't exist, and that that's somehow stopping the scientists (which doesn't make sense anyway). Actually, we're reaching logical conclusions based on the emerging need for alternative sources of energy. If there wasn't such a need, we wouldn't be such advocates. You yourself stated that when one energy runs out, we adapt to another. Unless you're suggesting we wait until the last drop of oil runs out, suffer through what would be one of the largest disasters of all time, and THEN start moving to solar power, your proposed adapting is exactly what scientists are already doing, and is already being implemented in projects like this one.

quote: it is manipulation of the laws that exist to get something desired.

Ask yourself why alternative fuel is desired. It's nothing to do with politics - it's because the CURRENT fuel is running out . Apply the 'equation' you refer to - people can see oil prices rising already, people know that it's running out and we need to find alternatives, therefore people are investing in renewable energy. Quite obvious.

And by the way - this discussion isn't even necessarily about economics. Whether it's more expensive or not, we have no choice but to move away from our dependence on oil. The original poster was simply stating that if we DON'T do what's necessary, the economy would collapse. Believe me, in a world which was as dependent on oil as we are today, which had no oil left - the economy WOULD collapse. So, to be clear, he was citing a consequence in terms of the economy of not adapting to renewable energies. NOT that the reason for pursing renewable energies was of itself primarily the economy - the primary reason is for us as a race to survive.